Talk:Georgi Pulevski

Where is it?

Thank you for another reference. Please provide location of original publication. Reference to references is no substitute for the original. We have already gone through this with a previous quoted document that apparently establishing a clear 'Macedonian' ethnicity in the late 19th century. But only the references were provided. Closer inspection and research proved there was no such document and the 'document' was almost certainly conjured up in the 1960s. It only existed in reference, and never in fact. My feeling is that the term 'Macedonian' was never in the original but was introduced in the referencing process. This has often been the case since the 1950s, in the official process of constructing a 'Macedonian ethnicity'. So, where is the original and what does it say? Look forward to it. Politis (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Which do you mean, the "Grammar"? I gave the full bibliographic details, it was published Sofia 1880. Friedman [1] gives the full bibliographic entry as follows: "Pulevski, Gj. (1880) Slavjano-naseljenski-makedonska slognica retovska. Sofia: Ugrin Diikov." Apparently the text is also contained in a modern edition of P's collected works, Gjorgija M. Pulevski, Odbrani stranici., ed. B. Ristovski, Skopje 1974. About the term "Macedonian" being contained in it: Again, according to Friedman, Pulevski in his "Grammar" called the language našinski or slavjano-makedonski; the title translates as "the language of the Macedonian Slavic population". What else is unclear? If you want to insinuate the whole work might be a forgery, the ball is in your field to find reliable sources to that effect; we have absolutely no reason to engage in any such speculation. The work has been described and accepted as authentic in the most reliable of secondary literature (Friedman is the leading authority world-wide). That's really all we need. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of that Mac-Bul silliness

Can we please release this poor innocent article from the iron grip of the on-Wiki Macedonian-Bulgarian feuds? This whole structure of having a "pro-Macedonian" and a "pro-Bulgarian" section is absolutely awful. You know, guys, even if it's hard to imagine for some of you, there might be readers out there who might actually be interested in other questions than whether he belongs to the one or the other nation. There might even be readers who wouldn't give a rat's.

By the way, why is the whole "Pro-Bulgarian activities" section only quoting primary sources? Let me guess: somebody forgot WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? Could there be a tiny chance "WHEREYOUGOTIT" was another of those third-rate nationalist websites that's being mimicked here, rather than a reliable secondary source? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

English language usage

As Fut.Perf. already explained English language usage defines the name of the article. So Google books:

1. Georgi Pulevski 15 hits
2. Gjorgija Pulevski 2 hits

Google Scholar:

1. Georgi Pulevski 14 hits
2. Gjorgija Pulevski 2 hits

To sum it up - on the same bases on which the article Makedosnko devoiche is with the MK transliteration, this one has to be Georgi Pulevski. Any further POV moves will be considered disruptive. --Laveol ^T 18:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This article has a tinge of pro-Bulgarian tendencies, especially in the last part, with no citations what so over, edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.56.76 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to readd the last work of Pulevski: “Язичница. Содържающая староболгарски язик, а уредена ем исправена, за да се учат болгарски и македонски синове и керки", where he considered the Macedonian dialects as part of Bulgarian language - ref: Македонизмът и съпротивата на Македония срещу него. Коста Църнушанов, Унив. изд. "Св. Климент Охридски", София, 1992, стр 41. This removal was not explained. Jingby (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For a change, you should post the part and explain in details where and which part made you believe that Pulevski thought for the Macedonian language as Bulgarian dialect. That will be a great start. You just post the name of the book and you GUESS what did he meant without ever bothering to explain it. That's called propaganda in normal countries. Too bad Bulgaria is not one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljupco79 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, do not remove referenced text. The refrerence is from book published by the Sofia University Publishing house. If you have a question discuss on the talk page. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This Google books analysis is old and it is not true. If you check, Gjorgji is more used. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is some statistics:

for Google

• Gjorgji Pulevski - 2,940 results on Google
• Gjorgjija Pulevski - 2,640 on Google
• Georgi Pulevski - 2,270 results on Google

just Google Books

• Georgi Pulevski - 66 results on Google Books.
• Gjorgji Pulevski - 213 results on Google Books.
• Gjorgjija Pulevski - 5 results on Google Books.

according to this, the most used name is Gjorgji Pulevski. You should rename the article.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't help noticing most of the hits you present are in a language different from English. Like it or not this is the most familiar title for the article. I now know why you want to push a different name, but you simply lack the evidence. --Laveol ^T 14:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Start off by searching for Pulevski alone so we can make a list of the variant spellings used before it (then we search for each in quotation marks and note the hits next to each):

• Gorgi Pulevski (77)
• Georgi Pulevski (42)
• Gorgija (M.) Pulevski (41)
• Gjorgji Pulevski (33)
• Djordji Pulevski (17)

Now the task of checking how many non-English results and duplicates come up for each. Please also see Foreign names and anglicization at Wikipedia:Article titles. --124.150.40.224 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)